Viewport width =
July 23, 2012 | by  | in Opinion |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter


Offsetting the nanny state

The term ‘nanny state’ became a widely used pejorative in New Zealand political discourse. There are some laws which aim to protect us from ourselves that few question. These laws commonly revolve around mandating basic safety measures in risky situations: compulsory seatbelts for car passengers and compulsory helmets for cyclists for example. But many economists actually oppose these policies; counter-intuitively, they could create harm rather than reduce it.

Everyone has a certain level of risk which they are willing to accept when engaging in certain behaviours. If we deem what we are doing to be too risky, we will take steps to mitigate the risk. For example, if the risk of injury from a car crash is beyond what is acceptable to me I can wear a seatbelt, lower my speed or pay more attention to the road in order to feel safer. Conversely, if I feel safe enough I might avoid these measures because they don’t seem necessary. This behaviour has been demonstrated in studies. The prominence of anti-locking (ABS) brakes in modern cars for example has not been proven to lead to any increase in road safety despite being far superior to older systems. When people know they can rely on these brakes they drive faster, follow closer and brake later.

But some risk reducing behaviours are superior to others because they also reduce the harms to third parties. Imagine a world where there are only two measures which I can take to reduce my chance of being injured in a car crash: driving at a slower speed or wearing a seatbelt. Both measures make me less likely to get injured, but it follows that if I wear a seatbelt I will be incentivised to drive faster to keep my level of risk relatively constant. The problem is that driving faster increases the level of risk to pedestrians, passengers and other drivers who could be injured in the crash, and the harms to whom I am unlikely to fully take into account (especially with ACC, which prevents liability for the costs of injuries). So when people wear seatbelts and have airbags they keep constant the level of risk they expose themselves to, but expose others to more risk.

The best policy then would be regulations which maximise the risks to drivers from a crash. Imagine how it would affect your driving if from every steering wheel protruded a large spike, aimed directly at the driver’s heart. Such a plan has been jokingly proposed by economist Gordon Tullock because the ‘offsetting behaviour’ it leads to would protect pedestrians. This novel line of thinking was an inspiration for New Zealand’s best economics blog, which is run by University of Canterbury economist Eric Crampton. Check it out at 

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Comments are closed.

Recent posts

  1. There’s a New Editor
  2. An (im)possible dream: Living Wage for Vic Books
  3. Salient and VUW tussle over Official Information Act requests
  4. One Ocean
  5. Orphanage voluntourism a harmful exercise
  6. Interview with Grayson Gilmour
  7. Political Round Up
  8. A Town Like Alice — Nevil Shute
  9. Presidential Address
  10. Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic Bag?

Editor's Pick

In Which a Boy Leaves

: - SPONSORED - I’ve always been a fairly lucky kid. I essentially lucked out at birth, being born white, male, heterosexual, to a well off family. My life was never going to be particularly hard. And so my tale begins, with another stroke of sheer luck. After my girlfriend sugge